Myth #3: America is a Christian Nation

A popular view among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians is that we have lost our originally founded Christian nation to liberal and secular influences. We need to return to our Christian moorings as a country or face God's judgment, which has already started in the form of economic recession and possibly through attacks by Al Qada and now ISIS. There is some lost "golden age" to which American Christians need to return, the belief goes, or else.

Last night, at our discussion group, we watched a DVD on nonviolent movements that included the story of the lunch counter sit-ins during the civil rights movement headed by Freedom Rider James Lawson. It reminded us about this myth of an American Christian nation. This is where we need historical honesty. Anyone who looks objectively at the history of America concludes that there really is no "lost golden Christian age" on which we were founded. Every generation of Americans has had societal blemishes that could only be characterized as unchristian (or, more accurately, unlike a nation following Christ), from the founders perpetuating slavery, to our treatment of native Americans, to the stain of child labor practices during the industrial revolution, to suppression of women's rights, to segregation and oppression of African Americans, etc.

Intellectually honest evangelicals like Mark Noll (In Search for Christian America) and Greg Boyd (The Myth of a Christian Nation) have exposed this myth through careful examination of the intentions and actions of our founding fathers. The American idea, of course, was based in some ways on the principles of a loving God found in the Bible, e.g. "All men are created equal" and "endowed by rights by their Creator," but this is a far cry from America being a unique "Christian nation." Enlightenment ideas also heavily fed into American democracy. Only a few of the founding fathers were conservative Christians. Many of them--Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, Washington, et al--were Deists and Universalists, and would be considered liberal heretics by conservatives today. Although many believed in "Divine Providence," this did not mean they believed in all of the Christian "orthodox" biblical teachings.

Jesus was not a Christian, nor did he found Christianity or an institutional "Church," and America is not a distinctly Christian nation. Yet, I and millions of people, seek to follow Jesus' teachings in order to make the world a better place. As I hope to demonstrate in my next book, sound study of history reveals this paradox and opens the door for a new spirituality our society desperately needs. If these things are myths, what is a more historically-grounded faith in Jesus?

A Challenge to a Literalist View of the Bible

There are two things that must be said in challenge to literalism. One, if you believe every word of the Bible is true, then you are obligated to rethink certain issues in light of biblical evidence. For example, salvation, in light of evidence that reveals the original Greek language of the NT does not teach the doctrine of everlasting damnation but rather teaches what some call "Christian Universalism," and the fact that many if not most of the early church fathers also held this view. This is part of the historical record for anyone to see if they look carefully enough. 

There are of course many other issues as well that demand attention because of misreadings stemming from the literalist community's practice of lazy biblical interpretation that is not true to the original language and culture of the Bible, e.g. the need to rethink the church, homosexuality, the end times, etc. If one believes the whole Bible is true then make it the original words and historical context that you believe, not later traditions, mistranslations, or misinterpretations. Be sure your Bible belief is on a firm foundation.

The second challenge is that a literalist viewpoint is tantamount to worshiping the Bible, not God. The Bible never claims we should view it the way literalists do. It never claims to be inerrant and the early church never used the NT as such. Literalists go beyond the original intent of Jesus, Paul, and the earliest church. If you believe the Bible is all true, you must go beyond the pat answers and proof texts and go straight to the original language and historical setting when addressing contentious issues. If this is not done, it's using the Bible irresponsibly. 

If in the course of this examination it becomes evident that the Bible is not all 100% factually true, the question is, Then what in the Bible can we trust? It must be hit home that there's plenty to trust in a fallible Bible, written by humans who claim to have encountered God, just as there's plenty to trust in any fallible historical manuscript. Just as historians use tools of historical evidence, authenticity, archeology, logic, etc., people of faith can use their minds, spiritual discernment, common sense, and historical & biblical evidence to ascertain what's trustworthy in the Bible. We won't all agree on details and some things will remain a mystery, but there are many things we are bound to agree on. For example, the love ethic of Christ, the new way of relating to God and humankind through the lens of love not the written code, that runs as a powerful theme throughout the NT. A theme that says Love for neighbor, not religious affiliation or believing the exact right doctrines, fulfills what God desires.

What can one trust in the scriptures? We trust the overall themes, the conclusions, the overall message of the Jesus Movement (as portrayed in the NT and other historical commentary), not assigning equal absolute authority and certainty to every individual word, verse, or passage. We draw out a message from the pattern and conclusions the biblical/historical record comes to (the Gospels, Pauls' letters, and historical evidence that reinforces the NT or highlights reasons to suspect parts of it). That kind of trust in holy writings is a more genuine faith. It respects the mystery of God's revelation and calls for a responsible use of a set of historical writings from which we can learn an inspired message, rather than insisting on a strict, adherence to an "infallible" text, or else. The former leads to unity, not uniformity, as readers major on what really counts: love, trust, and hope. The latter leads to division, as readers focus on whose interpretation is the absolute correct and infallible one and judge others who disagree.

Is Your Church Guilty of Spiritual Abuse? Check the Top Ten Signs

Don't underestimate the danger of spiritual
abuse. It devastates one's pysche, causes
depression and post traumatic stress disorder,
and leaves victims spiritually barren.  

Spiritual abuse: When those in spiritual authority manipulate, intimidate, and control others out of lust for power or fear of sin or insignificance. One or more of these signs doesn’t necessarily mean abuse is present, but the more signs, the more likely it is taking place.

Spiritual abuse is a stain on the body of Christ (I experienced it and write about it in my book). Today, many American churches and denominations are susceptible to it, particularly “reformed” Calvinistic churches or those with a highly disciplined authority structure. I cite examples from my experience including Sovereign Grace Ministries and Calvary Chapel. But spiritual abuse is also subtle and not easily recognizable unless one knows the signs. Learn these top ten signs so you can detect, expose, and help prevent abuse in your Christian community.

1 – Your pastor has an authoritative style of leadership. Churches that abuse typically have one controlling leader whose personality and ideas dominate church sermons, teaching, and decisions. He gathers elders and other pastors around him who submit unquestioningly to his authority. Members and other leaders are not encouraged to think and develop independent of his influence. Signs: (1) Lead pastor’s Sunday sermon is streamed via video to satellite churches. (2) The polity of the church is such that the lead pastor or pastors are shielded from real accountability. (3) There’s a strong focus on members submitting to their leaders and lower leaders submitting to higher leaders. Jesus never organized a hierarchy but told people to be servants. Paul’s form of biblical eldership was based on equality not submission.

2 – You are expected to commit to rigid rules for church membership and submit to church leaders’ authority. Despite no biblical mandate for formal church commitment or ecclesiastical authority in Scripture, spiritually abusive churches push a rigid form of membership and submission to church leaders as obedience to God. A hierarchy develops of members submitting to group leaders to elders to pastors to an executive board, which is controlled by the founder or lead pastor. Signs: (1) Members are required to sign a contract or agreement with strict rules for doctrinal beliefs and behavior. (2) A church discipline process is spelled out in detail that members must agree to.

3 – The church has a very wide view of what’s considered non-negotiable doctrines and behaviors and a very narrow view of what’s considered negotiable. Rather than making Christ’s one law of love for God and neighbor as the most important characteristic of a believer, belief in the right doctrines and certain religious behaviors becomes the main measuring stick for Christian maturity. Signs: There’s a lot of church documentation and teaching on correct doctrine.

4 – Any expression of concern about church decisions, teachings, or behavior of leaders is interpreted as disloyalty or sin. When a member or leader questions or challenges the status quo, they become suspect of being disloyal, told to submit, and even manipulated to do so. If they don’t, they are forced out. Signs: The history of the church or denomination includes leaders and members being fired or leaving under less-than-peaceful circumstances.

5 – The church deflects tough questions about their faith and doctrine. Only safe questions are allowed. There’s a veneer of openness but the bottom line is people are told not to be divisive about church doctrine. Pushed too far, sincere, reasonable questions are shut down in the name of unity. But biblical unity is not about creating uniformity. It’s about loving one another. Signs: Members are not encouraged to accept and explore their doubts but rather submit to what the church says is “orthodox” teaching.

6 – Church discipline is overdone and over taught in the church. Leaders will deny this by pointing to the percentage of discipline cases. But you need to measure the threat of discipline as well and how it’s done. Spiritual abuse happens when the interpretation of Matthew 18 and other Scriptures is very narrow and goes beyond what is stated or what can be reasonably applied to a contemporary situation. Signs: (1) There’s a long document about church discipline policy. (2) There is no appeals process for someone accused. (3) Members suspected of needing church discipline, or who are subject to it, must sit through lots of long meetings with leaders. (4) Shunning the accused is common when someone is deemed unrepentant or chooses to leave the church. Identifying “sin” and real “repentance” can become highly subjective and the church ends up shunning people for minor offenses (disagreeing with leadership or doctrine or what constitutes moral behavior) and rejecting people who have repented but haven’t jumped through sufficient hoops (e.g. signing a “discipline contract”).

7 – Your church and/or denomination has ex-member websites with stories of spiritual abuse. It’s one thing if a few disgruntled ex-members complain, but when a large number of people come out with stories about spiritual abuse, and are willing to post their stories, it’s a huge red flag. Especially when the stories reflect a pattern of misuse of authority, manipulation, and doing damage control to protect the reputation of the church. (See sample list of ex-member websites below).

8 – The church has a very strict definition of gossip. When members have concerns about the church or strains with relationships, they are expected to keep their thoughts to themselves. Signs: Any sharing of negative experiences in relationships, even if it’s healthy venting to a close friend, is perceived as sinful gossip.

9 – The church interprets Bible verses on women in submission to the nth degree. Women are expected to submit to their husbands. Paul’s teachings on women are rigidly and unevenly interpreted—e.g. wives are reprimanded for being unsubmissive but husbands are rarely reprimanded for not loving their wives like Christ and never for not submitting to their wives (Ephesians 5:21 tells believers to “Submit to one another”!! ). Signs: (1) Some churches teach husbands to monitor their wives communications, e.g. email. (2) The debate about women’s roles in the church is not up for discussion despite many alternative biblical interpretations, even in conservative churches, e.g. Four Square, Vineyard, and Evangelical Covenant churches allow women in leadership.

10 – A church deals with cases of sexual abuse in ways that serve the interest of the church not the interest of the victims and their families. When a member of the church is sexually abused by another member, rather than following the law and best practices (reporting it to local police and social services), a church will keep the abuse quiet under the guise of handling it “biblically.” Victims are forced to “forgive” their abusers and remain in their social sphere with no protection from post-traumatic stress and future abuse. Abusers are protected from local authorities and social stigma while victims and families are forced to remain silent about their pain, even to close friends, in the name of squelching “gossip.” Signs: People are familiar with this happening in the Catholic Church but it’s also common in Protestant churches. E.g., in 2012, a lawsuit was filed against several Sovereign Grace Ministries churches, the co-founders, and other leaders claiming cover up of child sexual abuse.

What should you do if you think spiritual abuse is taking place at your church? There is no set answer to this question, as it depends on the situation in the church. People should leave highly abusive churches and don’t look back or feel guilty. If spiritual abuse is not entrenched and it’s only in isolated cases, you should consider approaching a trusted leader in the church with your concern. How they respond will to tell you to what extent it is prevalent or if they desire to stop it from spreading. If they don’t acknowledge a problem and use abusive techniques like 2, 4, 5, & 8 above, it’s probably a highly abusive church and you should leave and consider warning others.

Have you seen other signs? Are there other ex-member groups we can add to this list? Please comment and add your thoughts and experiences with spiritual abuse.

Helpful Resources:
Spiritual Sounding Board – a blog that exposes spiritual abuse and encourages the abused
Abuse Resource Network – information on both sexual and spiritual abuse for Christians
Provender – a clearinghouse of sources on spiritual abuse
The Wartburg Watch – Dissecting Christian trends including spiritual abuse

Ex-member Sites:
Mars Hill Refuge
Joyful Exiles (Mars Hill Church)
SGM Survivors (Sovereign Grace Ministries/People of Destiny)
SGM Refuge
Calvary Chapel Abuse

Books:
Toxic Faith by Stephen Arteburn and Jack Felton (classic from early 1990s; one of first to uncover the problem in run-of-the-mill churches)
Churches that Abuse by Ron Enroth
Recovering from Churches that Abuse by Ron Enroth
The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen
Spiritual Abuse Recovery by Barb Orlowski

Shooter, not God, caused Newtown tragedy

Someone wrote a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper, The North Kitsap Herald, and implied God used the Newtown tragedy to punish the country for legislating God out of the public sphere. Here's my response (and below) that was published on January 4th, as well as another good response from James Behrend: http://www.northkitsapherald.com/opinion/letters/185674471.html
______________________

I don’t doubt Don Wiens is well meaning (“Reaction to school shootings in Newtown,” page A4, Dec. 28 Herald). But when he implied that God didn’t prevent the Newtown shooting because we’ve legislated God out of public life, he parroted the standard conservative “Christian” line from the likes of James Dobson, Franklin Graham, and the American Family Association.

They’ve been touting a vindictive God for decades, stating mirrored threats at every national tragedy to scare and manipulate the populace to buy into their warped theology: the nation has fallen away from God (pushing prayer out of schools and permitting gay marriage) and divine judgment has prevailed. I know. For 25 years, I was a part of that movement and trace my spiritual evolution out of it in my book, “Confessions of a Bible Thumper.”

Wiens and his national counterparts overlook the heart of the very God they claim to serve. Jesus condemned public displays of religion, told his followers to pray in secret, and taught the reign of God is not about Old Testament-style retribution, but rather cultivating a kind heart, loving your enemies and fighting for social justice.

Wien’s citing a C.S. Lewis book as proof of divine judgment is also misguided. A loving God may not always be “safe” because His justice is restorative — He has a knack for winning over renegades — not because He’s vindictive.

The truth is, the Newtown shooter was a home-schooled, mentally ill loner whose mother had an arsenal of guns. His deranged act wasn’t God’s instrument of justice for our rejection of fundamentalist religion. There may be underlying reasons for violence in our society, but God’s revenge isn’t one of them.

Michael Camp
Poulsbo, WA

4 Ways the Bible is Abused

Read the Bible like drinking beer, not sipping wine. – N.T. Wright

In my book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper, I tell the story of how I came to believe the Bible is routinely abused, particularly by fundamentalists and evangelicals, but also by the general public. I make the case the Bible should be taken seriously as an historical document written by human beings that has much inspirational material from God, but nevertheless, is not a heavenly, literal instruction manual to be applied across the board. Discernment is necessary in applying the Bible’s message to modern believers. Here are four ways well-meaning readers abuse the Bible, usually unknowingly:

1 – Not Understanding Translation Problems – Contrary to popular belief, the translation of the Bible is not straightforward. There are many instances where scholars can’t agree on the correct translation for a Hebrew or Greek word or there are variant meanings. Moreover, there is sound linguistic evidence there are many words in our English Bibles that are mistranslated. Bottom line: Although this doesn’t mean we have to question everything we read, readers should not be dogmatic that what they read is the end-all meaning for a word, verse, or passage.

2 – Misinterpreting Passages – There are three major ways this happens. (1) reading verses out of context (not paying attention to the surrounding background or a writer’s overall point), (2) misunderstanding the history, culture, or literary style behind a text, and (3) selecting certain passages from the Bible while ignoring other themes or principles on the same topic in other parts of the Bible. This is why one should read the Bible like drinking large glasses of beer (gaining fuller context), rather than like sipping wine and reading things piecemeal. Moreover, without an understanding of background history and culture, it’s very easy and common to misinterpret the meaning of a passage.

 
3 – Misusing the Claim to Authority – The Bible is not a set of timeless axioms to be strictly obeyed to the letter. It never claims to be such. Even most narrow literalists prove this by ignoring certain verses. For example, most conservatives don’t allow women to be pastors or teachers but, contrary to Paul’s admonition in I Corinthians 14 and one in I Timothy, they permit women to speak in the church. They are selective literalists. The point is, as N.T. Wright says, “…there is no biblical doctrine of the authority of the Bible.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Bible contains authoritative material. But its authority is not an across-the-board application. Its authority is found in as much as it reflects rationality and a remarkable dose of wisdom and moral inspiration that applies to one’s modern context. The Bible doesn’t always do this nor claims to. Not making this distinction gets “biblicists” in trouble as they attempt to get people to “submit to scripture.” Encouraging people to “love your neighbor as yourself” is a worthy goal, but teaching that all Christians must follow Paul’s admonitions for church order (which is also often misinterpreted) in the name of obeying God is just stretching the limits of whatever authority the Bible has. It also leads people to worship the Bible over and above God.

4 – Mislabeling Authenticity – Inerrancy advocates would have us believe the Bible is infallible with no errors whatsoever. But this flies in the face of biblical evidence. In my book, I cite a sampling of places where the Bible is clearly contradictory. As an historical document that sometimes cites eyewitness testimony, the Bible is comparable to other historical writings—it inevitably gets it wrong sometimes. This doesn’t mean it’s mythological, just that it’s a human document at its core (it doesn’t claim to be dictated by God). Such advocates also claim the Bible is wholly authentic. This also flies in the face of the evidence. Textual criticism is an important part of Bible study that not only reveals original meaning but how close and to what extent our modern Bible matches the ancient texts closest to the originals. Evidence suggests the Bible contains copyist errors and inauthentic passages. These aren’t huge discrepancies, but they need to be taken seriously. For example, that one passage (I Corinthians 14:34-35), where Paul says women shouldn’t speak or teach in church, was most probably added by a copyist with theological bias who wanted to keep the status quo of suppressing women in society (See Paul the Egalitarian).

In my studies, I discovered the modern, Western, evangelical way of looking at the Bible (infallible and the only authority for faith and practice) is not even supported by the Bible itself. And, other Christian traditions—the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example—have more rational ways of viewing the Bible that are much less susceptible to Bible abuse. I’ll continue to explore how to expose Bible abuse in later posts, but this is a good introduction to four common pitfalls serious students of the Bible need to avoid. Agree? Disagree? Please join the conversation.

A New Spiritual Age

I recently read Harvey Cox's latest book, The Future of Faith, and took away a few nuggets of truth that are very encouraging. First, Cox divides the history of Christianity into three periods: the Age of Faith, the Age of Belief, and the Age of the Spirit. The Age of Faith was the two centuries after Christ, when followers embraced the Spirit and emulated Jesus in community. "Faith" is more accurately translated "trust," as this period was not about doctrine but trusting a new way of relating to God through Jesus.

The Age of Belief--which includes the dark ages--is from the time of Constantine to the 20th century. During this period the focus was on what one believed--either orthodox dogma and creeds or heresies--rather than trust in Christ. Some of this period is still going on within fundamentalism and literalist evangelicals as they dig in their heels around various traditional views. For example, Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll told his flock not to read The Shack because it promoted unbiblical ideas. I'm not sure why he didn't encourage people to read it and decide for themselves. This "Age of Belief" mindset puts more emphasis on what one believes rather than on how one acts in terms of loving others and living like Jesus did. Notice how a conservative blog portrays and endorses Driscoll and how many times "heretical" and "false teaching" are mentioned. "Age of Belief" people will find it difficult to admit that The Shack might have some redeeming value, even if they disagree with some of it.

The Age of the Spirit, Cox argues, has begun and will continue to emerge as new paradigms replace fundamentalist and literalist thinking and as the number of non-Western Christians grow. This Age is also a renewal of the initial Age of Faith (Trust), as focus isn't on the details of what one believes, but how one is led by the Spirit of love (Not that what one believes is irrelevant, but it is secondary to love). I have seen this trend, especially in the last ten years, and trust Cox is correct. The Age of the Spirit is here to stay.

Everything in Moderation

I often remind my children that it's best to observe this rule of thumb--everything in moderation--when it comes to personal behavior. Without it people fall into the trap of alcoholism, drug addiction, and obsessive gambling, etc. The same rule of thumb can be said about religion and faith. Without moderation, people succumb to extremism, whether Islamic radicalism or Christian fundamentalism/evangelicalism. The cure for extremism is for moderate and progressive voices to speak sense, expose lies, and stand up for the victims of extremist ideology.

I introduced the abuses of evangelical extremism in the Christian Right in my nine lessons and expound on it in my forthcoming book, Confessions of a Bible Thumper. Here I want to share two examples of how moderation fights extremist Islam. First is Somali women's rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim turned atheist who exposes the victimization of women in radical Islam in her book Infidel. This is a courageous yet disturbing account of her journey out of fundamentalist faith and into rational and compassionate humanism. Although I think she ignores progressive ideas on faith when she rejects all religious thought and becomes an atheist, I applaud her heroic stand against the radical elements of Islam and her defense of women's rights. Her atheism seems to be a natural reaction to her experience and not the fundamentalist variety. A kind of moderate atheism.

Another more promising example is Dr. Hawa Abdi, another Somali woman (I've always admired and loved the strong-willed beautiful women of the horn of Africa) who stood up to the Party of Islam in Somalia in defense of her own moderate humanitarian efforts to fight suffering and injustice (which includes, like Hirsi Ali, the condemnation of female genital mutilation). Read the details in Nicholas Kristoff's article, Heroic, Female, and Muslim. The Party of Islam's militia tried to take control of her hospital but she heroically faced them down.

As a moderate Muslim, Hawa Abdi has much more influence to stop extremism because she remains a Muslim and attracts other moderate Muslims to support her efforts. (I make this point on Lesley Hazelton's excellent post on the subject). Whereas Hirsi Ali's atheism hinders Muslims from hearing her message, Dr. Abdi's Muslim faith helped rally other moderate Somali Muslims to protest the Party of Islam's actions.

It's encouraging to see moderate and progressive thinkers exposing the lies and abuses of extremists wherever those extremists are. In Somalia, Hawa Abdi's courage to fight Muslim extremists, and the outrage voiced by the world's Somalis, is an encouraging glimmer of hope that moderate ideals can win out.

John Shelby Spong and the Hereafter

When I first started this blog five years ago, people told me "your ideas remind me of Bishop Spong," the liberal theologian and former Bishop of the Episcopal church. Having never read him (as one just starting to emerge out of the sheltered enclave of the evangelical subculture), I checked out his books. In a way, these people were right. Spong was coming to similar conclusions as I, saying we should rescue the Bible from fundamentalists and that the popular literal and narrow interpretation of scripture is nonsensical (e.g. on gays, women, inerrancy, etc). While still embracing Jesus as one who revealed God and encouraging us to follow his example of selfless love.

Yet upon closer examination, I decided Spong goes too far. He seemed to doubt almost everything, concluding there was no supernatural elements in the Bible including the resurrection. Those positions seemed to me to be just as "fundamentalist" as the literalists, by deciding on these issues, not on the merit of objective biblical scholarship itself, but from a preconceived position. Like other progressives like Garry Wills would, I still feel that way. However, after seeing Spong speak last month in Seattle (touting his new book, Eternal Life: A New Vision), I have a new appreciation for his spiritual journey. I found him to be delightful, sensible, and full of compassion. And, one who believes in life after death, albeit without telling us exactly what it will be like. (I mean, who can?)

That's exactly what the new movie Hereafter does as well. Although sometimes excruciatingly slow, the movie gives us a glimpse of a place beyond death where light and peace await, without labeling a source of the light as God or Christ. Hereafter seems to base its theory of beyond on the many near death experiences that have been documented. Spong's book doesn't focus on those but is based on Spong's own personal research and vision for experiencing eternity starting now in a way that transcends religion. To me, the movie and Spong's book is at the very least a wonderful sign of spiritual yearning and sense most people seem to intrinsically possess, which is a stark contradiction to the popular view of materialism. Just some of my observations.

Squash Fundamentalism Wherever it Rears Its Ugly Head

Go for the jugular of fundamentalist mindsets. It is the enemy of freedom of thought. It is plagued by the disease of black-and-white thinking. It divides and often conquers. Yet, fundamentalism is harder to detect than one might realize. It's easy to see it when someone on the Religious Right discriminates against women or gays or promotes a controlling morality based on literalist views of the Bible. It's harder to see when held by progressive secularlists who rightly critique right-wing fundamentalism but succumb to black-and-white thinking in their response.

Years ago I was wrong about atheists. I rejected their world view and their motivation. I wrongly believed they chose to deny God because of their selfish desire to live autonomously in a universe free from moral restraints. I since learned that there are varieties of atheists, just like there are varieties of theists, and many atheists are moral and upright individuals. In fact, one of my heroes these days is an atheist: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote Infidel, and fights for the rights of Muslim women. But I also learned that some atheists are fundamentalists. Like fundy religionists, they don't fight fair, have an ax to grind, and refuse to go where the evidence leads.

Richard Dawkins, who regularly calls believers delusional, falls in the fundy-atheist category, I would say, along with others among "the new atheists." Atheist Michael Ruse said Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, makes him embarrassed to be an atheist. I respect Ruse for his candor. Antony Flew, the most famous atheist in Europe, changed his position and became a deist. When I read why in his book (There is a God), I gained a new respect for him and his position, even during the time he was an atheist. According to Frank Schaeffer in his new book, Patience with God, atheist Daniel Dennett argues decently and is no fundamentalist. (Dennett, author of Breaking the Spell is one of "the-gang-of-four" new atheists along with Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris).

There is such a thing as atheistic fundamentalism. I've learned there is a balanced way to approach religious arguments--in fact any controversial argument--that respects the facts over dogma and always attempts to go where the evidence and one's honest life reflection leads. This leads me to want to squash fundamentalism wherever it rears its ugly head--including inside myself--and pursue this balanced path instead. Care to join me?

Take the Insider's Tour of Evangelicalism

I'm a former Baptist missionary, aid worker, and Senior Writer for World Vision. I want to take you on an insider tour of evangelicalism, one of the fastest growing religious movements in America today. If you’re tired of Bible thumping or were ever tempted to thump a Bible thumper, this tour could be your cure. Laced with wit and humor (I hope you think so too), my journey takes you from my conversion amidst the 1970s Jesus Movement to Muslim animistic Africa with plenty of church-experience stops along the way to expose the good, bad, and the ugly of the evangelical movement.

But I don't stop there. Often disillusioned with evangelical institutions and dogma, I venture into the realm of the radical Left and their response to the Christian Right, only to find that religious conservatives don’t have a monopoly on fundamentalist mindsets. With clowns to the Christian Right and jokers to the secular Left, what is the average Joe to do who believes in God, is weary of organized religion, enjoys sex, watches the Daily Show (OK, Comedy Central also works), and can’t turn down a good microbrew? Well, before you throw in the towel and affix the new nifty atheist symbol to your bumper, you might want to check out my proposed alternate way: recover a reasonable faith that takes the New Testament call for freedom from man-made religion seriously, rejects narrow literalism, and insists on going where the evidence leads.

In my unique iconoclastic style (again, I hope so), I explore the fundamentalist roots of the church, charismatic and mainstream evangelicalism, the new progressives, including the emergent church, and over reactions to the Christian Right such as the writings of Bishop Shelby Spong and Sam Harris. By weaving personal stories and anecdotes together with some of the most controversial hot-potato issues of our day, I ponder such thought-provoking questions as these while answering them with clear reasoning and meticulous references from scholars, historians, and scientists:

• How and why do some Christians abuse the Bible?
• Why is the traditional doctrine of hell based more on tradition than on what the Bible truly affirms?
• Why is the evangelical church wrong on the gay rights issue?
• What’s all this rigmarole about the end of the world and Jesus’ return?
• Why are Christians wrong when they claim someone like Gandhi isn’t “saved?”
• Is there a reasonable way to solve the religion vs. science debate?
• Is materialistic atheism really ruling the day intellectually?
• And the real stumper, Can we ever recover from the damage done by the Teletubbies?

If you want to learn how to squash fundamentalism wherever it rears its ugly head, on the Right or the Left, and yearn for some clarity in religious thought and the culture wars, my tour in the form of a new book called Confessions of a Bible Thumper, may be your ticket to an authentic and progressive spirituality independent of dogmatic trappings. What part of this tour are you fascinated with?

Confessions of a Bible Thumper

Why haven't I posted anything in a while someone asked? Well, I've been busy working my day job and on a new writing project (could turn into a book) that I will begin to preview here. I welcome all your comments.

How a Former Evangelical Survived the Christian Right, Rejected the Radical Left, and Recovered a Rational Faith

Introduction

The enigma of Christian fundamentalism and most of evangelicalism is the loss of the biblical concept of freedom and the development of the unbiblical system of performance-based religion. Based on their preoccupation with biblical inerrancy and literalism, most of evangelicalism has succumbed to a deep-seated and insidious legalism that grips conservative bible-believing Christians with an iron fist that refuses to let go. From the asinine superficiality of extreme fundamentalism to the more thoughtful faith of moderate evangelicals (but no less performance- and law-based) the conservative church is in spiritual bondage, suffering from a severe drought of grace—something with which it should be inundated given what the Bible truly teaches. As one conservative church member said to me recently when I asked him why he stopped attending church, “I got tired of jumping through hoops.”

Although there may be glimpses of freedom among some progressive evangelicals, legalism typically reigns supreme, taking various forms within individual churches and denominations. The censorious gradations include on one side of the extreme written and unwritten codes for dress, behavior, speech, sex, ministry, and non-essential doctrines (e.g., restrictions on skirt lengths, body piercings, alcohol use, most if not all divorce, certain sexual behaviors even among married couples, women in ministry, adherence to the King James Bible only, and fundamentalist statements of fairh). Moderates aren’t nearly as strict yet have their own written and unwritten legalistic codes that include measuring a person’s godly maturity based on how well they practice spiritual disciplines, such as praying and reading the Bible, and their degree of commitment to, and financial support of, an institutional church. In short, legalistic evangelicalism focuses primarily on what believers must do for God rather than on what God has done for them. Afraid of teaching true biblical freedom, the institutional church attempts to control people through its emphasis on creating and enforcing laws derived from misinterpretations of the Bible and traditional non-biblical teachings rather than allowing individuals to govern themselves under the overriding law that Christ taught—love for God and neighbor.

Shamefully, the church also suffers from a shortage of clear thinking. Mark Noll laid out that case in his seminal book where he stated in the first sentence, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Not exactly an encouraging sign. Although Noll recognizes certain virtues of evangelicals, such as sacrifice and generosity to the needy, he concludes they are not exemplary for their thinking.

Ironically, the enigma of the radical religious Left is their extreme emotional overreaction to the Christian Right. Garry Wills calls this “the new fundamentalism”, a term he uses to describe the work of the team of scholars who make up the Jesus Seminar. “Though some people have called the Jesus Seminarists radical, they are actually very conservative. They tame the real, radical Jesus, cutting him down to their own size.” Wills is no card-carrying fundamentalist.

Confessions of a Bible Thumper is the product of my journey of 25 years as a card-carrying evangelical who, frankly, got tired of jumping through hoops. Disillusioned with anti-intellectualism, superficial platitudes and pseudo-spiritual pat answers, both blatant and subtle legalism, litmus tests for outsiders, and the gross and widespread mishandling of the Scriptures, I left my bible-thumping ways only to find that many liberal alternatives to the Christian Right aren’t much better.

Read entire Introduction...

Idolatrous Interpretation of the Bible

When I was in college at U. Mass Amherst, a friend of mine from Intervarsity fellowship told me about the time she visited a cult meeting (I believe it was called "The Way"). She said, "I know this sounds strange, but it was like they worshiped the Bible, not God."

Years later, that statement doesn't sound so strange to me. I've seen too many times where a Bible verse or teaching (more accurately, a certain traditional unsound interpretation of a Bible passage or theme) is worshiped above a more historically, culturally based reading of that passage. A second type of this practice is what I call selective literalism. When a reader says they take the Bible literally but in reality only accepts passages that fit their theology. They worship their theology above truth.

I believe the first main cause of this is the failure for churches to teach people good practices in studying the Bible. People who are told that it's the "Word of God" will take the English words in each verse at face value with little attention to the cultural, literary, or original-language context of those words. So a verse like "I wish above all things that you prosper", becomes 'God wants me and you to be wealthy'. "Flee sexual immorality", becomes 'Don't practice whatever I envision sexual immorality to be, e.g. masturbation, oral sex, viewing graphic sexual images, (all behaviors that the Bible doesn't address at all as a sin issue) or singles sexuality (a behavior that it addresses only as an ownership issue for a father or a bridegroom).

Selective literalism could take, for example, Jesus' discourse on the 'last days' and make it fit a present-day scenario (where every earthquake and disaster becomes "proof" that we are in the last days) but ignores Jesus' clear-cut statement "I tell you the truth, this [1st century] generation will not pass away until all these things take place". Or, refusing to address the obvious acceptance of polygamy, concubinage, and certain sexual freedoms in the OT, when interpreting sexual mores for today. Think about it. How many times has one heard a Bible message on the implications of God honoring these figures in the Hebrews hall of faith: Samson, who slept with a prostitute and took Delilah as a girlfriend, Rahab the prostitute, and David who had several wives and concubines and to whom God said he would have given more if he only asked?

Idolatrous interpretation can be annoying at best and dangerous (see my comments on Pat Robertson) at worst. Either way and even when it's sincere and well-meaning (often the case), it dishonors God to so casually call something his Word for people today when there is strong Biblical evidence to the contrary.